"Your approach has been far more open, partially because you seem to be preferring a position of front loading rather than intervention which places the initial conditions most likely outside our direct observation. By merging seamlessly with the science of evolutionary theory, you have presented a position which remains a logical possibility, even though we may never be able to find the 'smoking gun' that would trigger a 'design inference'. As such, you are indeed prominent if not a rarity amongst ID proponents."

Sounds fair to me, but there is one problem - Matzke is unwilling to publicly acknowledge such things about me and my position and instead insists on using his broad brush to paint me as a creationist. On Telic Thoughts, he once attempted to defend his stereotyping by citing the textbook, Pandas. When I informed him I had nothing to do with the book, nor have I ever seen the book, and I clearly did not agree with the book, it did not matter to him. In his mind, he is completely justified in stereotyping me because of an obscure book I have never seen or read.

If I am to be a "prominent ID proponent," then one is ethically obligated to acknowledge my views (since they are the views of a prominent player) when making claims about "ID." Alternatively, one should specify what form of ID they are talking about (Demsbki's version, Behe's version, the DI version, etc.) when making public claims about ID.

- Mike

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 21 17:34:39 2008